jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (13 posts)

Is this "new" method of sending people to their deaths just?

  1. HollieT profile image87
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    Although I confess that I'm completely opposed to the death penalty, I accept that in countries other than my own, such as certain US states, capital punishment is used legally and with the consent of many of the state's residents. I was shocked, however, when I read this article in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f … -very-well

    My question, therefore, and for those in favour of the death penalty, is not whether it's morally justified to send an offender to their deaths, but whether it's morally justified to send to an offender to their deaths KNOWING that the process is particularly slow and possibly very painful and then declare that the execution was a success?

    From my point of view, surely a quick and painless execution could be considered more successful than a slow and painful one? Your thoughts?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's quite disturbing.

      Barbaric.

      Morally wrong.

      1. HollieT profile image87
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree on every point, Janesix. I just can't imagine how others come to the conclusion that this "new" way to send people to their deaths is successful, effective, great!

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can't either. I find much in life that people do to each other unexplainable.

          People actually scare me. That's why I'm a hermit.

          1. HollieT profile image87
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I just find cruel. I'm a hermit too.

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Add to that story that are we really sure that those we put to death are really guilty? I know there is a preponderance of evidence in many cases and the offender has indeed received a competent and just verdict. But many have gone to see their maker an innocent man. In some cases where DNA evidence is available and deductive in it's reasoning convicts are sitting on death row awaiting a possibly unjust death. In some cases expense and time is used as an excuse. This is why I would rather leave the death penalty out of the mix as it has also been proven it is not a deterrent to murder with hardened criminals. So those who are not hardened criminals receive the same treatment especially with regards to competent legal representation.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    That drug is a general anesthetic in common use. I can only assume the person using it in this case was not competent?

    It is being used because manufacturers cut off access to the drug being used previously.

    1. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't read the background to why they're using this new drug, but wondered whether it's because it was more cost effective or there might be some other 'political, economic' reason.

      I suppose it would be difficult for the executioner/person who administered the drug to declare themselves competent, or for others to, given this was the first human trial. Clearly this offender was the guinea pig, what's worrying to me is that it's been declared a success.

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It is because the manufacturers of the "old" drug refused to sell it for this use.

        Almost any anesthetist would be competent.  Of course the person administering it for execution is not a doctor because doctors and nurses refuse to fill this role.

        People take this drug to the point of complete unconsciousness pretty much every day of the week for surgery etc,  If you then overdose them they will die while unconscious.  The procedure itself if not experimental, just the overdosing part but that is 100% predictable--unconsciousness, coma, heart stops.

        1. HollieT profile image87
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, I see there's more to this scenario than meets the eye. But I am shocked that the Prison service (as we know it in the UK) hasn't found some qualified person to administer the dose. I know that sounds a bit cynical, but not every doctor, anesthetist is driven by principles. It's a good thing if they are, obviously, just suprises me.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    If any medical person takes part they would almost certainly lose their license to practice--the profession has ways of keeping people in line on key ethical issue like whether you should take part in killing healthy people.

  4. ChristinS profile image94
    ChristinSposted 3 years ago

    It is barbaric, although the crime he committed and admits to was far more cruel.  The 8 months pregnant woman he brutally raped and killed endured a great deal of suffering and I find it hard to feel sympathy for him.  I really can't care if he suffered - he brought it on himself in many ways.  The idea of "state sponsored murder" though doesn't compute for me. If murder is wrong - it's wrong.

    An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.  I can understand the desire to put down people like this - I think anyone who read about what he did can.  That doesn't ever mean it is ok though.  Murder is murder in my mind - no matter who does it.  What this guy went through is truly outrageous and would probably fall under "cruel and unusual" being that it was so drawn out and that it was experimental.

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    It may have been cruel, but it was not 'experimental' by any definition that I (as a researcher) would recognize.

 
working